"Marine, we need you to head to the depths of the compound to rescue a scientist that is being held hostage by Satan and his manyfold minions. Here's your pistol and eight rounds of ammunition. Good luck."

What law says I have to start out the game with none of the fun shit promised on the box art? Again, is this not just a cheap way of extending the life of the game? In FPS games built entirely on the anticipation of using gigantic, phallic-symbol weapons, why not start me out with a damned machine gun and 200 rounds of ammo and go up from there?

Racing games pull this, too. Why do I have to spend 40 hours driving a minivan just to get enough money to buy a Honda Civic? Why can't I have access to all of the content right away? What if I don't feel any satisfaction in "unlocking" the game features I already paid real-life money for and just want to fucking race the Ferrari on the box art!

There's some good points in there, but some of them seem more like personal preference than an overall view of what gamers want. Also, anyone who thought the Final Fantasy commercials were showing gameplay footage must have really been out of touch with the games at the time

There's one mistake, though - "if you want to get me revved up about Madden 2006 on the XBox 360, don't show me a damned screenshot that's obviously from a cutscene"According to the developers, the actual gameplay looks better than those shots.

Logged

"Why did the chicken cross the Mobius strip? To get to the same side." - The Big Bang Theory

I didn't look at the article but I think that quote that you provided really is at odds with what makes a good game. If you give the player everything at the start, most gamers would quickly begin complaining that the game gets boring and repetitive. Good game design is about variety and reward. Giving up everything up front works against that in many cases.

I know that there is a large group of gamers that tend to just play a game for five or so hours and want to see everything the game offers before moving on, but I finish most of the games that I play and I really appreciate games that do a great job of rewarding the player with new items/tools and then sets up interesting scenarios that have to be solved with those tools.

I think this is one of the reasons why I disliked Halo 2 so much. By about the third level I had used every weapon that the game offers and piloted every vehicle. The rest of the game was just a slog through essentially identical firefights with only slight variations in the type of enemies that you face.

And that's why developers have to be creative with the reasoning behind the absence of weapons at the start, like the original Half-Life. Something I'd like to see (if it hasn't been done before): have the uber-marine start off packing most of his gear, but then have him captured and stripped of all of his weapons half way through the first mission. Or make the tutorial this first mission, and have him captured after that. (Reminds me a bit of Metroid Prime, actually.)

I didn't look at the article but I think that quote that you provided really is at odds with what makes a good game. If you give the player everything at the start, most gamers would quickly begin complaining that the game gets boring and repetitive. Good game design is about variety and reward. Giving up everything up front works against that in many cases.

I know that there is a large group of gamers that tend to just play a game for five or so hours and want to see everything the game offers before moving on, but I finish most of the games that I play and I really appreciate games that do a great job of rewarding the player with new items/tools and then sets up interesting scenarios that have to be solved with those tools.

I think this is one of the reasons why I disliked Halo 2 so much. By about the third level I had used every weapon that the game offers and piloted every vehicle. The rest of the game was just a slog through essentially identical firefights with only slight variations in the type of enemies that you face.

I disagree. I think developers can work different weapons into different situations and keep it fresh.

Say different damage by different weapons against different monsters. Or different speads of damage.

I think it is possible to really put some thought into why one weapon should be used over another. RPGs already do that. Some monsters have certain resistances, etc. FPS could do that, but they chose not to.

Haha, I found it really funn actually. This part cracked me up, and was so true:

Quote

The crate has long been held up as a symbol of lazy game art design, a crutch that game level decorators have been falling back on for fifteen damned years. Come to think of it, have you ever actually seen one of those wooden crates in real life? And did you smash it to see if there were bullets and medicine inside?

We'll try to be calm and avoid the violent hyperbole that spoils so many gaming websites, but are you telling me that Congress can hold hearings about steroids in baseball, but they can't do anything about jumping puzzles in first-person games? YOU CAN'T SEE YOUR MOTHERFUCKING FEET. IT DOESN'T WORK.

I understand this occurring in games like Turok 3. That's why they're called bad games.